Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Did George W. Bush with his recently signed nuclear deal with India increase the risk of a nuclear war? India is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. And then it is not a good idea to "reward" the country by making a deal with it on development of its nuclear technology. Former president of the US, Jimmy Carter, writes in the Washington Post:

There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. Why should they adhere to self-restraint if India rejects the same terms? At the same time, Israel's uncontrolled and unmonitored weapons status entices neighboring leaders in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other states to seek such armaments, for status or potential use

The Economist urges Congress to veto the treaty with India. The magazine thinks the deal is dangerous and that Mr. Bush is unprincipled in signing it:In striking his deal with India, allowing it to import nuclear fuel and technology despite its weapons-building, Mr Bush has not for the first time seemed readier to favour a friend than to stick to a principle

2 Comments:

El-Baradei, Nobel Peace Prize Winner with the IAEA, thinks the deal is good for Non proliferation.However ''...countries which have not signed the NPT should not get hold of nuclear technology.'' Say the people of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.